Can we win in the climate change battle?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
The "Climate change battle" arguably is a battle that is just named "Climate change" for some reason, and if it is being phrased as a battle, it will be treated as one.
What does "Battle" mean?
People have generally regarded a battle on default as something winnable. If anything, what a term means depends on how people use it, and people use it to represent something with a "winnable" attribute.
No matter what the battle is, against an army or against a gun duelist, the eradication of the other side can be treated as a victory on your side. Such objectives are never impossible(Inter-entity conflicts are never logically contradictory) so winning a battle is always technically possible.
If we are losing a battle, we could just switch to the other side and say we are winning it. Nothing logically forbids us from doing it. If something is losable it is winnable. If Con does not prove that this battle will end a tie, Pro wins.
Full Forfeit, Extend. Vote CON.